Value of search results as a whole as the best single measure of information retrieval performance

Information Processing and Management

Volumn 34, Issue 5, 1998, Pages 557-579

  Su, Louise T ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA ACQUISITION; DATA REDUCTION; INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SYSTEMS; RESPONSE TIME (COMPUTER SYSTEMS);

INTERACTIVE INFORMATION PERFORMANCE;

INFORMATION RETRIEVAL;

EID: 0032154848     PISSN: 03064573     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0306-4573(98)00023-5     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Barry, C. L. (1993). The identification of user criteria and document characteristics: Beyond the topical approach to information retrieval. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.
2. Barry, C. L. (1994). User-defined relevance criteria: An exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(3), 149-159.
3. Barry, C. L., and Schamber, L. (1995). User-defined relevance criteria: A comparison of two studies. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Chicago, IL, 32, 103-111.
4. Belkin, N. J., and Vickery, A. (1985). Evaluation and user satisfaction. In Interaction in information system: A review of research from document retrieval to knowledge-based system (pp. 188-198). London: The British Library.
5. Blair, D. C., & Maron, M. E. (1985). An evaluation of retrieval effectiveness for a full-text document-retrieval system. Communications of the ACM, 28(3), 289-299.
6. Cleverdon, C. W. (1972). On the inverse relationship of recall and precision. Journal of Documentation, 28, 195-201.
7. Cool, C., Belkin, N. J., and Kantor, P. (1993). Characteristics of text affecting relevance judgments. In: M. E. Williams (Ed.), Proceedings of the 14th National Online Meeting, New York, NY, 77-84.
8. Cooper, W. S. (1973a). On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness, part 1. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24, 87-100.
9. Cooper, W. S. (1973b). On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness, part 2. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24, 413-424.
10. Egan, D., Remde, J. R., Gomez, L. M., Landauer, T. K., Eberhardt, J., & Lochbaum, C. (1989). Formative design-evaluation of SuperBook. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 7(1), 30-57.
11. Froehlich, T. J. (1994). Relevance reconsidered - Towards an agenda for the 21st century: Introduction to special topic issue on relevance research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(3), 124-134.
12. Harter, S. P. (1996). Variations in relevance assessments and the measurement of retrieval effectiveness. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47, 37-49.
13. Harter, S. P., and Hert, C. A. (1997). Evaluation of information retrieval systems: Approaches, issues, and methods. In M. E. Williams (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (Vol. 32, pp. 1-95). Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc. for American Society for Information Science.
14. Hitchingham, E. E. (1979). A study of the relationship between the search interview of the intermediary searcher and the online system user, and the assessment of search results as judged by the user. Final report (Project No.475 AH 70111. Grant No. G00 7702309). Office of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
15. Howard, D. L. (1994). Pertinence as reflected in personal constructs. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(3), 172-185.
16. Mizzaro, S. (1997). Relevance: The whole history. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(9), 810-832.
17. Park, T. K. (1992). The nature of relevance in information retrieval: An empirical study. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
18. Park, T. K. (1993). The nature of relevance in information retrieval: An empirical study. Library Quarterly, 63(3), 318-351.
19. Orr, R. M. (1973). Measuring the goodness of library services: A general framework for considering quantitative measures. Journal of Documentation, 29, 315-332.
20. Regazzi, J. (1982). A study of critical factors affecting the development of performance measures in evaluating bibliographic information retrieval systems. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.
21. Regazzi, J. (1988). Performance measures for information retrieval systems - An experimental approach. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39(4), 235-251.
22. Saracevic, T. (1975). Relevance: A review of and a framework for the thinking on the notion in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 26, 321-343.
23. Saracevic, T., & Kantor, P. (1988). A study of information seeking and retrieving. Part II: Users, questions, and effectiveness. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39(3), 177-196.
24. Saracevic, T., Kantor, P., Chamis, A. Y., & Trivison, D. (1988). A study of information seeking and retrieving. Part I: Background and Methodology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39(3), 161-176.
25. Schamber, L. (1991). Users' criteria for evaluation in a multimedia environment. Proceedings of 54th Annual Meeting of the American Society for information Science, Washington, DC, 28, 126-133.
26. Schamber, L. (1991b). Users' criteria for evaluation in multimedia information seeking and use situations. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.
27. Schamber, L. (1994). Relevance and information behavior. In: M. E., Williams (Ed.) Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (Vol. 29, pp. 3-48). Medford, NJ: Learned Information, Inc. for the American Society for Information Science.
28. Su, L. T. (1991). An investigation to find appropriate measures for evaluating interactive information retrieval. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.
29. Su, L. T. (1992). Evaluation measures for interactive information retrieval. Information Processing and Management, 28(4), 503-516.
30. Su, L. T. (1993). Is relevance an adequate criterion for retrieval system evaluation: An empirical inquiry into the user's evaluation. Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Columbus, OH, 30, 93-103.
31. Su, L. T. (1994). The relevance of recall and precision in user evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(3), 207-217.
32. Su, L. T. (1996). Value of search results as a whole as a measure of information retrieval performance. Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Baltimore, MD, 33, 226-237.
33. Tagliacozzo, R. (1977). Estimating the satisfaction of information users. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 65, 243-248.
34. Tessier, J. (1981). Satisfaction measures in presearch interviews. A report to the Presearch Interview Project. (NLM Grant No. 1 RO1 LM03074-01. Syracuse, NY: School of Information Studies, Syracuse University.
35. Tiamiyu, M. A., & Ajiferuke, I. Y. (1988). A total relevance and document interaction effects model for the evaluation of information retrieval processes. Information Processing and Management, 24(4), 391-404.
36. Wang, P. (1994). A cognitive model of document selection of real users of IR systems. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.
37. Wang, P. (1997). The design of document retrieval systems for academic users: Implications of studies on users' relevance criteria. Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the American Society for information Science, Washington, DC, 34, 162-173.
38. Wang, P., & Soergel, D. (1998). A cognitive model of document user during a research project. Study 1. Document selection. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(2), 115-133.